The most pressing discussion involved a special permit request by Thomas and Susan Costigan for a multi-story addition and deck on Street on Plum Island. Their representative, Douglas Des Shan, outlined the proposed changes, emphasizing that the modifications would not create new non-conformities but would expand into the existing front yard setback. The current lot is approximately 24,000 square feet, falling short of the 40,000 square feet required, but boasts more than adequate frontage. The presentation underscored that the height of the structure would remain unchanged, and the proposal would maintain compliance with other dimensional requirements. Des Shan assured that a “thick row of trees” would provide visual screening, mitigating concerns about privacy and neighborhood aesthetics.

A significant aspect of the permit process was the site walk conducted with the Conservation Commission, offering neighbors a firsthand look at the proposed changes. Despite the careful planning and emphasis on adherence to zoning bylaws, the proposal faced scrutiny regarding its impact on the neighborhood. Des Shan countered concerns by highlighting the non-detrimental nature of the construction.

Further discussion focused on a proposed project involving modifications to a two-family dwelling, which introduced a new stairwell and deck extensions. The architectural plans, presented in detail, showed structural changes aimed at improving aesthetics and functionality without encroaching further into the existing front setback. However, neighboring property owners raised alarms about potential parking issues and view obstruction. A resident expressed apprehensions about the new stairwell and deck impacting parking availability and views from her property. Another neighbor supported the project but voiced concerns about the size of the proposed decks.

The Select Board addressed these concerns, particularly focusing on the potential impact on parking and neighborhood aesthetics. The discourse highlighted a clear divide between supporters who viewed the project as an improvement and those fearing negative implications for the local community. The board sought to clarify the parking situation, noting that the current layout could accommodate two rows of parking, though skepticism remained about the feasibility of fitting multiple vehicles in the space.

Another topic was the continuation of a public hearing regarding the lot configuration at 11 and Sunset Drive. The applicant sought a variance to reconfigure the lots, creating a legal non-conforming lot by demolishing a dwelling and constructing a new home. The board deliberated on the implications of granting a variance, considering neighborhood lot sizes and the potential precedent set by such a decision. The applicant presented an analysis of the neighborhood, revealing a wide variety of lot sizes and arguing that the reconfiguration aligned with existing patterns. However, concerns were raised about the impacts of creating imbalanced lot sizes, with some board members suggesting maintaining the current configuration might be less detrimental.

Debate ensued over what constituted the “neighborhood” for assessment purposes, with differing opinions on the appropriate scope for evaluation. The board acknowledged the complexities of the situation, contemplating the historical context of the lots and the potential hardship posed by previous mergers and unimproved roadways.

In a separate but related discussion, the board considered a special permit request from Tamar Pearlstein and Margaret Wallace to construct a second floor on their single-family dwelling. The applicants detailed their plans to utilize the existing foundation for the expansion. The board scrutinized the property’s specifications and compliance with regulations, ultimately approving the permit and scheduling a final review for January 30.

The meeting concluded with a public hearing for a permit request by John Haret to raise an existing building and construct a new dwelling with a garage. The applicant ensured compliance with all setback requirements, and the board expressed satisfaction with the improvements, unanimously approving the motion with specific zoning conditions.